PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

FALAK SHER vs ABDUL AZIZ (DECEASED) S — 2024 MLD 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2024 MLD 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
MLD
Parties
FALAK SHER vs ABDUL AZIZ (DECEASED) S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 115; Civil Procedure Code

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

FALAK SHER VS ABDUL AZIZ (DECEASED) S. 115 & O. XLI, R. 27---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Interim/interlocutory orders passed by subordinate Court---"Decided case"---Scope---Petitioners invoked revisional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing an order passed by the Appellate Court by which request of adjournment by the counsel for opposing party (appellants) was accepted and main appeal was fixed for next date to come up for final arguments coupled with arguments on application for permission to produce additional evidence filed under O. XLI, R. 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('the application')---Contention of the petitioners was that Appellate Court had incorrectly fixed the application as well as the main appeal for arguments on the same day as there was an apprehension that while proceeding to decide the main appeal, the application would be ignored---Validity---Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reflects that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised when defects contemplated in the provision of S. 115 of the C.P.C, 1908, are arising out of any case which has been decided---Examination of the said provision reveals that High Court should not too readily interfere with interlocutory orders of the subordinate Court, unless express or implied conditions of clauses 'a', 'b' and 'c' of S. 115(1) of the C.P.C, 1908, are involved and only those interlocutory orders attract revisional jurisdiction that deal with some question in controversy before the Court or it has effect on rights of the parties to the lis---Baseless apprehensions or assumptions as to wrong exercise of jurisdiction or orders of adjournment or orders fixing the case for arguments, certainly do not fall within the scope of 'case decided' to maintain revision-petition under S. 115 of the C.P.C, 1908---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English